R C SHARMA Vs. JAGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum and appellant before the State Commission. Having lost out in both the Fora, he has filed this revision petition before this Commission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Jage Ram had some urine problem and on advice from Medical College, Rohtak was advised surgery which the complainant got done from the petitioner who is a qualified surgeon and is doing private practice. First surgery was done on 7.6.1993. He was operated upon second time as the bleeding was continuing and in spite of second surgery, bleeding continued which was attributed to possible blood cancer. Complainant was then advised to contact Medical College Hospital, Rohtak where he was again operated on 10.7.1993 and again operated during the period of admission between 14.8.1993 to 17.9.1993 in Medical College Hospital. The complainant recovered but alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing the parties, perusal of material and evidence on record found the petitioner negligent and directed him to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation within 2 months of the order failing which amount was to be payable with interest @ 12% p.a. An appeal against this order filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed, hence, this petition.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that when he operated the complainant on 7.6.1993, he did so on a clear understanding that the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak has advised surgery after finding him fit to undergo surgery satisfying themselves after carrying out all the necessary tests and, it is for surgery only, that the patient has come to the petitioner on his own choice. Only during the surgery when he found that the prostrate of the complainant was sticking to his rectum which in his judgment was a case of prostrate cancer, did, he remove the prostrate, which after removal, was given to the relatives of the complainant for pathological tests. No one returned with the report. Since the bleeding continued and since in this view of the petitioner suspicion was of prostrate cancer, Blood sample was taken and a test called "Serum Acid Phosphate' was done which was found to be 4.8 K.A. units against 1.4 K.A. in normal cases. This confirmed the suspicion of the petitioner that this indeed was a case of prostrate cancer for which Honvan injection were given. One of the consequence of prostrate cancer is that the passage of urine and facces join each other. It is in these circumstances that the patient was referred to the Medical College. Whatever was done by petitioner was as per accepted medical practice. There has been no negligence on the part of the petitioner. Both the lower Fora have failed to correctly appreciate the evidence on record hence reached wrong conclusion. These orders need to be set aside. None from the respondent/complainant have proceeded ex parte.